Submitted by Phoenix (not verified) on Sun, 15/11/2009 - 00:28.
Mr Secretary General,
You state that NATO:s first obligation or primary goal so to speak, in Afghanistan, is to make sure that Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorists. You later state that the Talibans use ruthless tactics involving human shields – these tactics are documented by NATO. You later state that NATO is doing everything in its power to protect and help the civilian population of Afghanistan but you are forced to admit that there is no perfect tactic against this ruthless tactic used by the Talibans. This resulting in the inevitable loss of innocent human lives in NATO attacks.
In the face of such a situation NATO:s tactic in Afghanistan should be reconsidered. The outcome of this conflict may very well become counter productive in the future – resulting in an increase in terrorist-activity. The suffering from the civilian population in Afghanistan is going to be inherited down many coming generations. In the face of such a future, a possible greater threat than the current situation, the primary goal vs “collateral damage” should be reconsidered.
Situated in your neighbour country Sweden I can briefly describe the “law of self defence” in this country. An attack towards you OR another person in the close vicinity is allowed to be counteracted by the same force the aggressor uses OR the appropriate force to counteract the criminal attack in itself. However. If you use so called “excessive force” you might face criminal charge yourself – that is if you counteract the aggressor with a much greater force than the aggressor uses and causes major injury to him/her. The only time excessive force is allowed (in retrospect) is when the circumstances was so difficult for the defensive person that he/she simply lost control over the emotions. As civilians are not trained to respond appropriate in a violent situation (like an educated police-man for example) it is not unusual that the courts rule in favour of the person who tried to fend of an attack with much greater force than would be required because the situation was so extreme that no logic decision and action at that moment could be used or applied and instead primitive emotions and actions took care of the situation. This law has its base in the knowledge of how ordinary human beings function in extreme situations.
So if I were to apply Swedish law – indeed a difficult and maybe technically inappropriate course of thinking in this particular conflict – the result of NATO:s actions in Afghanistan sometimes falls under “excessive use of force” or “force not balanced according to posed threat vs appropriate counteraction” as the force applied to eliminate the enemy at the same time eliminates a great number of innocent "secondary goals". NATO should be able to act in a balanced way in this type of conflict by some kind of other approach than "brute force" resulting in major “collateral damage”.
This problem in its fundamental parts from my point of view MAY be derived from that this operation and conflict has too many “parameters” and several secondary goals directly conflicting with partly each other and/or the primary goal and currently leads to an inappropriate way of handling the situation (due to chaos). In the face of such a complex situation a stand down from ALL western involved parties that uses excessive force should be applied, at least temporary, and a throughout reconsideration of “the means that justifies the end(s)” should be brought forward partly from a democratic process.
As Allan said – it is time to listen to the people (on “both sides” – from “western civilians” to civilians in Afghanistan) and from there decide the most logical way to resolve this conflict. After all – if NATO is truly honest about democratic goals, NATO MUST act in a democratic way all the time (!) to prove that they really stand up for this goal.
I sincerely hope that this way of leaving the command to Afghan security forces will become ONE way to stop further unnecessary NATO bombings and that this course of action will in time result in the removal of foreign western forces from Afghanistan so the Afghan people themselves can deal with their own future of their own choice.
Submitted by danniger (not verified) on Wed, 28/10/2009 - 01:29.
Intéressante intervention aussi. Elle permet aux internautes de comprendre les méthodes utilisées par l'OTAN dans le cadre de l'ISAF. Si l"objectif n'est pas exclusivement de tuer les talibans, il n'est pas non plu compréhensible de faire de l'Afganistan, un havre de paix pour les terroristes de tous poils. La perte de civils dans cette oeuvre est effectivement inévitable compte tenu des tactiques utilisées par les talibans qui font d'innocentes et honnêtes gens des boucliers humains. Pour la stabilité et le développement de ce pays, il faut absolument que les talibans soient mis hors d'état de nuire que ceci soit diplomatiquement ou militairement. Les deux idées se complétant mutuellement, la tenue d'élections impliquant le maximum d'afghans aidera à rasséréner le climat intérieur. Si l'ISAF réussi à garantir la sécurité des électeurs au cours du second tour en perspective, elle aura permis de comprendre la faisabilité de la paix.
Submitted by Allan (not verified) on Tue, 27/10/2009 - 06:12.
Dear Secretary General!
Thank You for your answer!
According to Lt.COL. David Kilcullen, who was General Petraeu´s counter-insurgency advisor in Iraq the US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qaída leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives. That´s a hit rate of 2 per cent on 98 per cent collateral.
Lt.COL. Kilcullen also says that: Every military counter-insurgency strategy hits up against the probality that it will, in time, create more enemies than it kills. "So you blow up a suspected Taliban site and kill two of their commanders-but you also kill 98 woman and children, whose families are from that day determined to kill your men and drive them out of their country".
Also the latast leaked US intelligence report say that there are plenty of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan-but they are a different matter to al Qaída. According to the Boston Globe 90 per cent of the Taliban fighters are "a tribal, localised insurgency" who see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power. They have "no goals" beyond Afghanistan´s borders.
The public support for the Afghan war seems also dwindle away down. The latest Washington Post poll shows that 51 per cent of Americans say the war is "not worth fighting" and that ending the foreign occupation will "reduce terrorism"
In the latest BBC poll 77 per cent of Afghans said the ongoing US air strikes are "unacceptable", and the US troops should only remains if they are going to provide reconstruction assistance rather than bombs.
I say, it is time to listen to the Afghan people!
Comments
Mr Secretary General, You
Mr Secretary General,
You state that NATO:s first obligation or primary goal so to speak, in Afghanistan, is to make sure that Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorists. You later state that the Talibans use ruthless tactics involving human shields – these tactics are documented by NATO. You later state that NATO is doing everything in its power to protect and help the civilian population of Afghanistan but you are forced to admit that there is no perfect tactic against this ruthless tactic used by the Talibans. This resulting in the inevitable loss of innocent human lives in NATO attacks.
In the face of such a situation NATO:s tactic in Afghanistan should be reconsidered. The outcome of this conflict may very well become counter productive in the future – resulting in an increase in terrorist-activity. The suffering from the civilian population in Afghanistan is going to be inherited down many coming generations. In the face of such a future, a possible greater threat than the current situation, the primary goal vs “collateral damage” should be reconsidered.
Situated in your neighbour country Sweden I can briefly describe the “law of self defence” in this country. An attack towards you OR another person in the close vicinity is allowed to be counteracted by the same force the aggressor uses OR the appropriate force to counteract the criminal attack in itself. However. If you use so called “excessive force” you might face criminal charge yourself – that is if you counteract the aggressor with a much greater force than the aggressor uses and causes major injury to him/her. The only time excessive force is allowed (in retrospect) is when the circumstances was so difficult for the defensive person that he/she simply lost control over the emotions. As civilians are not trained to respond appropriate in a violent situation (like an educated police-man for example) it is not unusual that the courts rule in favour of the person who tried to fend of an attack with much greater force than would be required because the situation was so extreme that no logic decision and action at that moment could be used or applied and instead primitive emotions and actions took care of the situation. This law has its base in the knowledge of how ordinary human beings function in extreme situations.
So if I were to apply Swedish law – indeed a difficult and maybe technically inappropriate course of thinking in this particular conflict – the result of NATO:s actions in Afghanistan sometimes falls under “excessive use of force” or “force not balanced according to posed threat vs appropriate counteraction” as the force applied to eliminate the enemy at the same time eliminates a great number of innocent "secondary goals". NATO should be able to act in a balanced way in this type of conflict by some kind of other approach than "brute force" resulting in major “collateral damage”.
This problem in its fundamental parts from my point of view MAY be derived from that this operation and conflict has too many “parameters” and several secondary goals directly conflicting with partly each other and/or the primary goal and currently leads to an inappropriate way of handling the situation (due to chaos). In the face of such a complex situation a stand down from ALL western involved parties that uses excessive force should be applied, at least temporary, and a throughout reconsideration of “the means that justifies the end(s)” should be brought forward partly from a democratic process.
As Allan said – it is time to listen to the people (on “both sides” – from “western civilians” to civilians in Afghanistan) and from there decide the most logical way to resolve this conflict. After all – if NATO is truly honest about democratic goals, NATO MUST act in a democratic way all the time (!) to prove that they really stand up for this goal.
Adding: I’ve just recently watched the clip:
http://natochannel.tv/default.aspx?aid=3577&lid=281
I sincerely hope that this way of leaving the command to Afghan security forces will become ONE way to stop further unnecessary NATO bombings and that this course of action will in time result in the removal of foreign western forces from Afghanistan so the Afghan people themselves can deal with their own future of their own choice.
Regards
/
Phoenix
Intéressante intervention
Intéressante intervention aussi. Elle permet aux internautes de comprendre les méthodes utilisées par l'OTAN dans le cadre de l'ISAF. Si l"objectif n'est pas exclusivement de tuer les talibans, il n'est pas non plu compréhensible de faire de l'Afganistan, un havre de paix pour les terroristes de tous poils. La perte de civils dans cette oeuvre est effectivement inévitable compte tenu des tactiques utilisées par les talibans qui font d'innocentes et honnêtes gens des boucliers humains. Pour la stabilité et le développement de ce pays, il faut absolument que les talibans soient mis hors d'état de nuire que ceci soit diplomatiquement ou militairement. Les deux idées se complétant mutuellement, la tenue d'élections impliquant le maximum d'afghans aidera à rasséréner le climat intérieur. Si l'ISAF réussi à garantir la sécurité des électeurs au cours du second tour en perspective, elle aura permis de comprendre la faisabilité de la paix.
Dear Secretary
Dear Secretary General!
Thank You for your answer!
According to Lt.COL. David Kilcullen, who was General Petraeu´s counter-insurgency advisor in Iraq the US aerial attacks on the Afghan-Pakistan border have killed 14 al-Qaída leaders, at the expense of more than 700 civilian lives. That´s a hit rate of 2 per cent on 98 per cent collateral.
Lt.COL. Kilcullen also says that: Every military counter-insurgency strategy hits up against the probality that it will, in time, create more enemies than it kills. "So you blow up a suspected Taliban site and kill two of their commanders-but you also kill 98 woman and children, whose families are from that day determined to kill your men and drive them out of their country".
Also the latast leaked US intelligence report say that there are plenty of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan-but they are a different matter to al Qaída. According to the Boston Globe 90 per cent of the Taliban fighters are "a tribal, localised insurgency" who see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power. They have "no goals" beyond Afghanistan´s borders.
The public support for the Afghan war seems also dwindle away down. The latest Washington Post poll shows that 51 per cent of Americans say the war is "not worth fighting" and that ending the foreign occupation will "reduce terrorism"
In the latest BBC poll 77 per cent of Afghans said the ongoing US air strikes are "unacceptable", and the US troops should only remains if they are going to provide reconstruction assistance rather than bombs.
I say, it is time to listen to the Afghan people!
Post new comment